82,900
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == | Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == r<sub>n</sub>''<ref>RE = Referential expression; ''r'' = Referent</ref>— ie the thing being defined and the label defining it are identical, as illustrated in the following example: | ||
{{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”)}} | {{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”)}} | ||
Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a | Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a [[Dilbert definition]] qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Definitions]] | *[[Definitions]] | ||
*[[Biggs hoson]] | *[[Biggs hoson]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |